Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Any technique can be easily defeated by someone who knows it's coming. In the O/T case, the friend is motivated (doesn't really want to let it work so he can feel pain, I don't blaime him), so he's blocking it easily by stopping the wrist flexion. And, Janet's dead-on, kotegaeshi is more of a movement-based operation of accepting uke's balance and momentum in a direction, the extending it out past where he thought he was going to go, combined with a structural change he/she isn't prepared to deal with. All happens at the same time, fall down, go boom. If trained ukemi, looks awesome. If not trained, looks ugly and often leads to something being broken.

But, I agree, don't try to show outside of class if you are still trying to learn it. I was tol that Kotegaeshi is a "20-year technique." So, keep that in mind, too. Not easy to really "Do" in a real situation.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

also, kotegaeshi has a certain set of pre-requisite move in order to take uke's balance. So, it's easier for us to twist their wrist.

and moreover, most of aikido techniques requires a flowing force from the opponent. If he's standing still, It will be hard.

And... you know... if the guy is standing still, then he's not coming at you to do bad things, which means he's no threat, so the aikido - taking uke's force to return the energy back into him or have him pass it into an object or the ground - just doesn't apply.

And, generally, the techniques which start with uke stationary, and which are called aikido, typically begin with nage/tori initiating movement... and that movement is what is taken advantage of, right?

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

Since it came up, I'll throw out 2 considerations:
1. Static training is the practice of moving in unison, regardless of what your partner is doing. The theory is the lack of a vector of force should allow nage to focus more on what she is supposed to be doing and less on what her partner is doing. The absence of force should not prevent movement.
2. The assigned role of nage (and uke) is to facilitate the education process, not pre-determine a winner. Ultimately, it is not relevant who "attacks" first, aside for the fact the the initiator statistically has a strong advantage.

In my experience, "real" attacks are actually going to feel more like a static attack... the premise being that your attacker is not going to over-extend her attack or give you a unique vector of energy, making the attack feel less like they are "giving you energy". Rather, a good component of the attack is going to be designed around veiling the attack itself. Just because you don't feel threatened doesn't mean there isn't a threat - it just means you can't feel the threat.

Keep it simple. Kotegaeshi is a common kata that gives us the opportunity for irrimi, tenkan, and affecting the body through a joint. The best ones I have felt neither required my participation, nor could I defend the movement. Don't mistake form for application; I would work very hard to prevent my partner from isolating my wrist if we were not practicing form.

For much of our training, our kansetsu waza is based upon pain compliance - at some point your partner needs to make a concessionary decision to preserve their safety. The problem is that sometimes that decision is a poor one, which places nage in a difficult position. If nage is correctly performing the technique, this kinda leaves only 2 options: nage abates and the technique "fails", nage continues and injuries uke. Neither feedback is desirable and what's worse, option one gives the impression the technique did not work, which is untrue .We used to distinguish between "exercising" our joints (resisting) and receiving an applied technique (kata).

Hooker sensei used to compare the unity of aiki to math. We need 100% aiki. If my partner gives me 50, then I need to do 50. If my partner gives me 90, I only need 10. If my partner gives me 10... Don't let static get to you, that just means you need to do 100% aiki.

And... you know... if the guy is standing still, then he's not coming at you to do bad things, which means he's no threat, so the aikido - taking uke's force to return the energy back into him or have him pass it into an object or the ground - just doesn't apply.

Just to be clear that while the uke is still and balanced, he holds strongly (this is part of the uke's practice). The grip should be strong enough to make nage's initial moment difficult. This is the challenge that the nage has to work with.

If my partner gives me 90, I only need 10. If my partner gives me 10... Don't let static get to you, that just means you need to do 100% aiki.

Dude! just want to point out a bit of math error here. i blamed it on US education system for not preparing us for higher math functions like addition and subtraction. maybe the math in aikido just strange that defies certain logic, kinda like fuzzy logic. maybe someone (not moi) that is good with math and aikido can come up with new field of math: aikido math. it should have something along the line of 1 + 1 = 1

Dude! just want to point out a bit of math error here. i blamed it on US education system for not preparing us for higher math functions like addition and subtraction. maybe the math in aikido just strange that defies certain logic, kinda like fuzzy logic. maybe someone (not moi) that is good with math and aikido can come up with new field of math: aikido math. it should have something along the line of 1 + 1 = 1

I don't do math, I just use my handy-dandy Nine Halls Diagram. Stupid math.

Just to be clear that while the uke is still and balanced, he holds strongly (this is part of the uke's practice). The grip should be strong enough to make nage's initial moment difficult. This is the challenge that the nage has to work with.

But this is static training. If we're practicing dynamically, or if we're out in the world, why did nage allow uke to get a strong grip in the first place?

But this is static training. If we're practicing dynamically, or if we're out in the world, why did nage allow uke to get a strong grip in the first place?

Katherine

Nage messed up. That's the reason for practicing from a static position. Practicing this way also allows you to feel more of what is going on so that you can discover the technique as well as your flaws.

But this is static training. If we're practicing dynamically, or if we're out in the world, why did nage allow uke to get a strong grip in the first place?

Katherine

The training is as dynamic as you can make it, I you can move big strong uke from nothing, that's progress. The starting point is static in the case of katatedori, morotedori, katadori and other "doris". It is a laboratory setting where the partners can repeatedly and safely examine the forces in play, the various openings that may exist in their waza, the mental attitude, the appropriate ukemi etc...

I think the idea of the "dori" is to establish a demonstrable control over your partner. It's not really an "attack," but the control that precedes the attack. The aikido use of the "dori' is to the control without the attack, although technically the "attack" would not matter, hence the progression to omit it.

The notion that a static grip is somehow, "wrong" as a practical control is odd. At its base level, the attack is supposed to be a stimulus. If it is a poor attack (i.e. one that does not affect our partners), it should give us less trouble, not more. "Like most beginners, you attacked me wrong." It is possible that the nature of a grab can affect the manner in which you deal with the attack, but it should not affect your ability to deal with the attack.

The notion that a grab is avoidable is also false. The assumption of bodily control via a grab or clinch is a common and successful method in many combat arts. The principle we work on is not to the let the grab assume bodily control. This is often communicated with the "kuzushi on contact" mantra.

To go back to kotegaeshi. I trained for many years before I heard the best advice about my kata - "I'm not that good." You need a partner that is invested in your progress, not preserving her ego. Falling down is not the purpose of kata. Form is not the purpose of practical application. Don't confuse the two.

But this is static training. If we're practicing dynamically, or if we're out in the world, why did nage allow uke to get a strong grip in the first place?

Two points, echoing what Jon said.

First, static versus dynamic is a false dichotomy. The point can be expressed in innumerable ways: dynamic is in the static and static is in the dynamic. In-yo. Potential energy resolves to kinetic as kinetic resolves to potential. The orientation of a moment (rotational/torsional stress in a structure) lies in the same path of the resulting momentum when it is released and the stress (potential) becomes kinetic (motion)- and vice versa -- you can absorb/deflect kinetic through structure -- ("To a point, Lord Copper, to a point.") But quibbles aside, the distinctions of expression are -- Tomato::Tomahto.

Second, the grip is in the context of attack, It is premised on the assumption of the presence of a weapon or strike -- say, a grip to stop or delay the drawing of the sword or use of the knife -- or prevent atemi. Again, this is not static versus dynamic -- but to study using structure to defeat (or more usually moderate or better direct) a dynamic that is already present. Conversely, when the student's grip is ineffective or lacking, I illustrate with a tanto or wakizashi thrust -- and then the grip gets intuitively correct. At the same time, it is the building block -- or sandbox, if you will -- best used to observe means and effects of various orientations of stress and movement on structure, because when when things become more fluid -- the nature and form of connection to the attack becomes less fixed and obvious.

My pushback on the idea of static technique is because, except at very high levels, static situations make it very easy for uke (consciously or unconciously) to subvert the goal of the training. Uke doesn't try to control the center, they just stand there. Or they adjust every time nage starts to get them moving. Or any of a number of things.

For advanced students, sure, that's part of the training. But pedagogically, static technique is often used to walk beginners through the "shape" of "foot goes here, hand goes here." Without careful explanation of what's going on, it very easily becomes a strength contest that beginners simply don't have the tools to win. So neither uke nor nage learns anything helpful. IMO, correct ukemi for static technique is even more difficult than good ukemi generally. It's easier for uke to "win" in a static situation, and it's hard for people to remember that "winning" isn't really the goal.

"Kuzushi on contact" is great, but that isn't what you're training if you stand there and wait to engage until uke grabs you. Rather, you're training how to recover from your failure to achieve kuzushi. Which is a useful skill, but doesn't teach much about timing, connecting before the moment of contact, and other skills that are essential in a dynamic encounter. In my experience, people who do a lot of static training are often not prepared to handle a dynamic situation: they're used to being able to take their time and "feel out" how to move uke.

Of course, people who do a lot of very dynamic training can find themselves unprepared to handle it if uke does actually manage to establish a solid grab. Any training method can be overused.

My pushback on the idea of static technique is because, except at very high levels, static situations make it very easy for uke (consciously or unconciously) to subvert the goal of the training. Uke doesn't try to control the center, they just stand there. Or they adjust every time nage starts to get them moving.

This is similar to the situation when uke jumps into a highfall for no good reason in "dynamic" training. In both cases the partners are denied the opportunity to learn anything. Needles to say that this is not
how, what we call kihon training, works.